put this data with the essay from Mitchell. Be sure to understand the part about the fails, which are illegal, and that they show up T plus 4. Taking into consideration the reporting structure of the CNS Fails data, fails are reported on Trade + 3 days as a fail if such trade does not close out on time. Thus, for a trade executed on Wednesday March 12, 2008 a fail would be reported on Monday March 17, 2008. Similarly a trade executed into a failure on Monday March 17, 2008 would show up as a failure on Friday March 20, 2008. Date CNS Reported Fails Closing Price Bear Stearns BSC 3/10/2008 36,297 $62.30 Bear Stearns BSC 3/11/2008 149,700 $62.97 Bear Stearns BSC 3/12/2008 135,647 $61.58 Trade Executed Bear Stearns BSC 3/13/2008 19,424 $57.00 T+1 Bear Stearns BSC 3/14/2008 201,768 $30.00 T+2 Bear Stearns BSC 3/17/2008 1,247,876 $4.81 T+3 (CNS Fail) Trade Executed Bear Stearns BSC 3/18/2008 749,837 $5.91 T+1 Bear Stearns BSC 3/19/2008 2,120,638 $5.33 T+2 Bear Stearns BSC 3/20/2008 13,789,126 $5.96 T+3 (CNS Fail) Bear Stearns BSC 3/24/2008 12,588,395 $11.25 Bear Stearns BSC 3/25/2008 11,736,910 $10.94 Bear Stearns BSC 3/26/2008 7,673,413 $11.21 Bear Stearns BSC 3/27/2008 9,340,963 $11.23 Bear Stearns BSC 3/28/2008 12,396,655 $10.78 Bear Stearns BSC 3/31/2008 4,677,810 $10.49 Clearly, evidence reveals a significant premonition that Bear Stearns was about to take a nose dive as more than $64 Million worth of Bear Stearns shares were sold into net settlement failure on March 12, 2008 as the failures increased 6-fold from 200K to 1.2 Million. The pattern continues during the markets decline leading into Monday March 17, 2008 where the fails again accumulated 7-fold from 2 Million to near 14 Million while the market collapsed from $30.00 to a closing price of $4.81 Now who was so sure of the demise of Bear that they just sold everything they could, and could not, get their hands on? Sorta stinks, no??? By the way, this data is aggregate. That is, these are the fails left over. You could naked short a 100,000, buy back 50 before the end of the day, and only 50 would show up.
Since you didn't answer my question flytiger, I'll ask it again. Its a simple yes or no answer. Did Goldman at any time refuse to be a counter-party to Bear? It certainly sounds like the answer is yes, based upon this partial posting from you earlier. Faber says to his television audience, âNow ultimately that trade did take place [ie. Goldman did accept Bearâs credit] after my interview with Mr. Schwartz concluded, but the day prior, Goldman did not want to. I have incontrovertible proof of that.â
Mate when I was at Merril we didnt make a move or take a position UNTIL CNBC passed it for us. Yes the city is totally in their thrall they are the true masters of the Universe.
Did Goldman refuse at any time to be a counter-party to Bear or not? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The hedge fund manager whom Faber âtrustsâ was lying. Goldman was not turning down Bearâs credit. We know this because some minutes later in the broadcast, Faber says so. " I think this is answering your question. The author says no. Did any of you guys ever go to high school? this is like deal ing with fourth graders. Can you comprehend? How is this not answering your question? And you quote Faber who says he has proof, but you don't question him. How can this be any clearer??????? Faber says so. He says it very quickly, just as an aside, as if it doesnât matter at all. He says, by the way, âI have heard that that trade did actually go throughâGoldman did say alright, now we will accept Bear as a counterparty.â
I have a question have you ever worked in a major or minor financial institution? I have very little back/middle office experience directly as i was front office but i can tell after living through the Barings debarcle not to mention LTCM if you think the risk managers really give a shit about what some tosser of CNBC says you are deluded.
Just watched the video, say what you want about his views, but Patrick Byrne has got serious guts putting himself out there like that.
You mean your endless posts about one unfair thing going on Wall Street to the other? How SEC should be doing that and this, how they are not doing their job and all these things are gonna happen cause you are going to make complaints to the attorney general. A simple search would suffice, since ALL of your posts are nothing more than crying about unfairness on Wall Street. Honestly, what do you hope to accomplish with your idiotic diatribes? The SEC is doing exactly what it was designed to do and Wall Street is doing the same thing it always was. The more things change, the more they stay the same. As you keep crying & complaining, you are just making a fool of yourself. Blaming Faber for the Bear Stearns collapse, lol, that's really a new idiotic low for you. Yeah it's all his fault. He also did their accounting, bought the subprime and scripted for their CEO to lie. And EVERYONE on Wall Street hangs on to his every word.
Stop trying to skirt the issue flytiger. Did Goldman at any time refuse to be a counter-party to Bear? The answer is black or white. Yes or no. What Faber said was âNow ultimately that trade did take place [ie. Goldman did accept Bearâs credit] after my interview with Mr. Schwartz concluded, but the day prior, Goldman did not want to. OK, so what do we have? Faber said Goldman agreed to be a counter-party AFTER Faber's interview with Schwartz. But, THE DAY PRIOR Goldman did not what to. Guess what? If Goldman didn't want to do something, it simply didn't do it. End of story. Sorry, but your dog, and this story, won't hunt.